Oh, pfft. How does it do that? Why doesn't that apply to LG or Samsung or TSMC? Skin color or sexual proclivity does not give a person some sorta magic knowledge or skill. A company can shed that crap and be just fine.
You've still not answered how DEI improves business performance. You've still not answered why it doesn't apply to homogenous billion-dollar companies. And X is doing just fine. Did you miss the last election?
Ah yes. Those nebulous unspecified forces. Somehow I'm responsible for them.
You haven't shown that at all.
First off, no, that's simply not true. We have plenty of counter-examples (blind auditions in orchestras being just one). Second, you're now basically admitting what you've spent so long denying: that DEI is in favor of racial discrimination. What's more, you are in favor of racial discrimination.
You are in favor of racial discrimination. You're correct that this isn't much of a gatcha, in the sense that everyone knows it already. The real problem is that you think that there is a right kind of racial discrimination.
So you can't. Just admit it. It's okay. Though if you can show any replication of the supposed "DEI is good for business" consulting reports, I could change my view.
You've shown little reason to believe that you even understand what said "supposed "DEI is good for business" consulting reports" say in the first place, though? Nor have you actually refuted any of the previous points raise on the subject.
What damage? You're begging the question that participation not matching the population indicates damage, and that's just stupid.
Call it whatever you want, but you're the one in favor of racial discrimination, not me. Hell, you aren't even denying it.
Hey, improvement! You actually provided a link! It's just that, I'm immediately left wondering where in anything that I've poked at on the subject is "the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives" a real factor?
Yeah, I'm calling your attempted argument inane, because, yet again, you're too busy trying to manufacture some moral ground to stand on after having ignored and dodged relevant stuff.
You've still ignored how I had raised and addressed such, which continues to make your accusations all the more laughable. You continue to do your cause no favors.
Except blind auditions DID fix that damage. So what damage that they didn’t fix are you even talking about?
Yeah, at this point, you're just convincing me not to bother with you any more, given the nature of your choices of argument. I'm reminded again of how you've repeated denied that there's any possible valid reason for concern when it comes to Trump and Russia because "Drill, baby, drill."
What the hell are you even talking about? You chose to claim that blind auditions didn't fix the damage from discrimination, not me. But the only form of damage you've pointed out (qualified women being excluded, and orchestras being deprived of their talents) are exactly the damage that they do fix.
I'm glad too. There's too much hate here already.
When you're too busy indulging in your preconceptions about what you wish was said and doing so repeatedly, it can rather interfere with understanding what was said. It rather feels like most of this conversation is driven by you doing such and I've been growing tired of such.
My "argument" is that those who defend DEI and at the same time say it's colorblind are contradicting themselves. As for the context I'm avoiding here's the paragraph again:
Do you see the buried assumption in that first sentence? That systemic racism is real and that it exists. Now obviously systemic racism has existed in this country--Jim Crow, segregation, poll taxes, red-lining, etc. But that sort of overt, de jure racism is not what they mean. Ibrahim X. Kendi, the star of the movement, has said that any disparity in outcomes between Whites and Blacks is evidence of systemic racism. I find that difficult to believe, mainly because we can see that there is also a disparity in outcomes between Asians and Whites. Consider the current freshman class at Harvard:
Note that they felt no need to mention what percentage of the class identified as White or Caucasian. If we assume they made up the remainder, that would mean that roughly 32% of the class is White. Quite obviously Whites are under-represented compared to American society in general and Asians are wildly over-represented. Systemic racism in favor of Asians and against Whites? Or the more likely reason, which is that Asians work hard and (may) have higher IQs in general than Whites.